Blue Works Better. - Barking Heads

John F. Kennedy: Conservative? Hardly.

Tue, 11 Jul 2006 07:11:15 -0600

When confronted with the evidence that Eisenhower was a flaming Liberal (by today's standards) a few on the Right have responded by claiming that John F. Kennedy was a Conservative - because he cut taxes.

It has been said that JFK's tax cuts were the greatest in history; that may be true, but I haven't seen an actual analysis that supports or refutes it. But let's put JFK's tax cuts into perspective:

JFK cut the top tax bracket on earned income (wages) from 90% to 70%. Today, Bush has cut this tax to half of that, or 35%.
JFK's tax package treated capital gains (e.g., profit from stocks, bonds, and other investments) the same as earned income - 70% tax. Bush has reduced capital gains taxes to 15%. Most of the income of the wealthy comes from capital gains, not wages.

All told the wealthy paid 70% of their income in taxes under JFK. Today, the wealthy pay less than 20% (combining wages and capital gains).

The Plaming of the NY Times

Sun, 02 Jul 2006 07:19:56 -0600

I've suspected almost from the start that the "leak" published by the NY Times (and the Wall Street Journal and others) was a setup by the Bushies: The fringe-right press was just too orchestrated in its denunciation of the Times, and the "leaked" info was actually in the public domain already, and thus the "leakers" could not get in trouble.

From the Boston Globe:

But a search of public records -- government documents posted on the Internet, congressional testimony, guidelines for bank examiners, and even an executive order President Bush signed in September 2001 -- describe how US authorities have openly sought new tools to track terrorist financing since 2001. That includes getting access to information about terrorist-linked wire transfers and other transactions, including those that travel through SWIFT.

Betting on Abramoff

Sat, 06 May 2006 18:30:37 -0600

Did Jack Abramoff give money to any Democrats or Democratic causes? Some time back, irritated by attempts to paint the Abramoff shenanigans as a bipartisan scandal, I offered a small sum ($10) on the Far-Right newsbusters.org site to anyone who could find that Jack Abramoff gave money to any Democrat or any Democratic cause. I've received some flack from some of the NewsBusters netizens, who claim that I've lost the bet. I think I won. Welcher or winner? Here's the facts, you be the judge:

First the the facts on the Abramoff case with regard to Democrats and cash: